You are making a very good point: the UBL XML naming conventions have been taken in the context of the UBL project to match well defined design principles.

My comment has been made in the context of other vocabularies that do not share the same design principles and more or less blindly borrow your XML naming conventions out of their context.

In that case, the distinction between elements and attributes is often quite subjective and that doesn’t seem to make much sense to use different naming rules for these two constructions.

On the contrary, I think that it does make sense to differentiate concrete constructions that belong to the XML infoset (and that can be LCC by similarity to UML objects) from abstract constructions that only belong to the PSVI -when there is one- (and can be UCC by similarity to UML classes).

Thanks for your feedback!

Eric

Sorry you don’t agree with our conventions. You might want to look at line 225 of the ebTA spec which is the basis for both the UBL NDR and UN/CEFACT NDR documents. Further, from my perspective, the decision on LCC for attributes and UCC for elements and types makes perfect sense given how we are using those constructs in our models. Types and elements are representative of BIEs, and as such are different than attributes which are only supplementary components.